@DeezNutts

I think the point here is that Apple is showing good will to the consumers who maybe comparing these prices, when it comes time to making a decision between Mac or PC.

They may see that MS charges an average of $180 for upgrade pricing, while Apple is charging $30. Since we can all agree that Snow Leopard is a bugfix/optimization upgrade, and Windows 7 is pretty much the same, then they would be comparable in terms of "features" they provide. Therefore, Microsoft is charging 6 times as much !!

This shows how much good will MS is extending to its user base, despite having screwed them over by Vista (which had it's own upgrade fee).

It's more political than economical.

@testudo

Everyone here knows this, but I'm going to repeat it; you have a lot of double-standards. You need a course in logical discourse.

You make a claim that Apple's rewrite of Finder should have happened in 10.3. Well guess what? Microsoft should have fixed the security problems in Windows 2000 (since most of them linger from the days of Win98). And they didn't. I'll bet that they still haven't.

Second, you complain that Apple doesn't offer upgrade pricing, but you defend MS upgrade pricing by saying that no one buys retail upgrades. Both of these are silly.

Apple charges the same fee for upgrade or retail. It just so happens that it's ALWAYS lower than Microsoft's; by a big margin! Also it relieves Apple from writing a serial number / activation routine to distinguish between upgrade/retail serial numbers. I think most Mac users really appreciate the fact that they're upgrade does NOT require a serial number or activation. I'm sure you prefer activation :-)

As your first lesson in discourse:

"people always say" means nothing. Whatever follows after that, is basically pulled out of your pants. This is not an argument. Who are these people? You make a claim, then provide proof. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Right, so all those peeps running Core2Duos and Quads are going to keep running Vista or XP. Please, the MS lemmings are going to line up by the millions to buy this upgrade. Your average Vista Ultimate user is going to be into MS for $500 large in the past 3 years just to get most (not all) of what they were sold to begin with.

So you're saying people actually have 3 year old PCs that can run Windows 7? Seriously? Mac users keep saying 3 year old PCs are c***.

@testudo

Everyone here knows this, but I'm going to repeat it; you have a lot of double-standards. You need a course in logical discourse.

Oh, and the Mac faithful don't have double-standards? Or try to offset some argument by going the "Well, MS does ....."?

You make a claim that Apple's rewrite of Finder should have happened in 10.3. Well guess what? Microsoft should have fixed the security problems in Windows 2000 (since most of them linger from the days of Win98). And they didn't. I'll bet that they still haven't.

Proves my point. I wasn't arguing whether MS fixed any of their problems (and no one here probably knows the answer to that). I was discussing Snow Leopard, which is, as Apple said last year, a bug fix and optimization build of Leopard, with the added benefit of removing all PPC support (because PPC is BAD).

Oh, and they told us how quick it installs. Really? How does that sound to potential Windows users? "Wow, you mean they install OS X so many times that it matters how quick it installs?"

Second, you complain that Apple doesn't offer upgrade pricing, but you defend MS upgrade pricing by saying that no one buys retail upgrades. Both of these are silly.

No, I didn't "complain" apple doesn't offer upgrade pricing. I stated it as a fact. Others have complained. In fact, only Apple gets away without offering it. If any other company doesn't offer upgrade pricing, they get slammed as not supporting their loyal users. That's a fact.

Technically, Snow Leopard is upgrade pricing, as it only applies to Leopard owners. Those users with Intel Macs and 10.4 installed (there ain't many, I'm sure) have to buy the Mac Box Set.

Apple charges the same fee for upgrade or retail. It just so happens that it's ALWAYS lower than Microsoft's; by a big margin!

Apple also updates its software more often than MS updates theirs. The price may be less, but you're paying it more often. Bear that in mind.

Also it relieves Apple from writing a serial number / activation routine to distinguish between upgrade/retail serial numbers.

Completely wrong. You don't have to do any of this to offer upgrades vs. new. You buy a new Mac, it comes with a DVD just for your Mac. If you bought it at the time of a new OS release, you could get a Tiger install disc and a Leopard one. However, the Leopard one will only work once Tiger is installed. You can't just install Leopard (a main irritant to those who re-install the OS all the time). No numbers, no keys, no activation. Simple checks.

As your first lesson in discourse:

"people always say" means nothing. Whatever follows after that, is basically pulled out of your pants. This is not an argument. Who are these people? You make a claim, then provide proof. The burden of proof is on YOU.

You're right. What those people say means nothing. Most of them are on MacNN posting c*** they know nothing about.

And where is the proof when people talk about the problems with Vista, how it is broken, and all that? Oh, right, that's all hearsay and things people heard. I just love reading all the Mac owners who'd rather die than use Windows tell people of all the problems with Vista, when most people who run Vista have no problems with it. I have in on my MBP, and the biggest issues I have are with Apple's drivers. Beyond that, it works fine, even before I installed SP-1.

But I'm sure that's just me. All the other people have troubles with it, I'm sure.

If you bought Vista (and took that shafting) you now have to pay the same as those who didn't? That seems pretty unfair.

BTW, no need to buy the box-set: buy 10.5 for $129 and add the 10.6 update for $29.00 -- same as everyone else.